ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2007
TIMI risk score: does it work equally well in both males and females?
Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Referrals in acute coronary events for CARdiac catheterization: The RACE CAR trial.The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2010Trial
- Observational
- Sex as a Biological Variable in Emergency Medicine Research and Clinical Practice: A Brief Narrative Review.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2017Review
- Observational
- Discrepancy between clinician and research assistant in TIMI score calculation (TRIAGED CPU).The western journal of emergency medicine · 2015Observational
- Comparison of TIMI and Gensini score in patients admitted to the emergency department with chest pain, who underwent coronary angiography.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) risk score is a seven item risk stratification tool derived from trials of patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS) that has been validated in emergency department (ED) patients with potential ACS. We hypothesised that it might have different prognostic abilities in male and female patients.
methodsThis was a prospective cohort study of ED patients with potential ACS. Data included demographics, medical and cardiac history, and components of the TIMI risk score. Investigators followed the hospital course daily. The main outcome was death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or revascularisation within 30 days as stratified by TIMI risk score and compared between genders using chi2 tests.
resultsThere were 2022 patients enrolled: 1204 (60%) females and 818 (40%) males. The incidence of 30 day death, AMI, revascularisation (n = 168) according to TIMI score is as follows (female vs male): TIMI 0 (n = 670), 1.6% vs 2.0%, p = 0.2; TIMI 1 (n = 525), 4.6% vs 8.5%, p = 0.02; TIMI 2 (n = 378), 6.3% vs 10.4%, p = 0.05; TIMI 3 (n = 234), 6.5% vs 24.6%, p<0.001; TIMI 4 (n = 157), 22.7% vs 24.4%, p = 0.15; TIMI 5 (n = 52), 35.5% vs 39.1%, p = 0. 2; TIMI 6 or 7 (n = 6), 33.3% vs 66.7%, p = 1.0. The relationship between TIMI score and outcome was highly significant (p<0.001) for each gender; however, males tended to have worse outcomes at lower TIMI risk scores.
conclusionsThe TIMI risk score successfully risk stratifies both males and females with potential ACS at the time of ED presentation; however, males have worse outcomes at lower TIMI scores than females.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.